nanog mailing list archives
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:52:19 +0100 (BST)
It might be worth relaxing filtering within 2001::/16. The RIPE NCC appears to be making /48 PI assignments from within 2001:678::/29 (e.g. the RIPE Meeting next week will be using 2001:67c:64::/48)Why the whole /16 rather than just that /29 and a few other blocks set aside for /48s?
Indeed, and why jumble these up, there's enough space to keep different allocation types separate and have no confusion with just a few trivial filters, universally deployed, which I suggest is the only way to stop degeneration. If one ISP deviates it creates pressure on others to accept the same. Then we're heading for another v4 mess as people will continuously push the boundary.
There are a lot of /48s in a /16, so protecting against someone accidentally deaggregating their allocated /32 into / 48s seems legitimate.
And some will deaggregate to protect against others advertising more specifics brandon
Current thread:
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size, (continued)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 02)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size James Aldridge (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Leo Vegoda (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size James Aldridge (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Leo Bicknell (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Christian Seitz (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size James Aldridge (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 02)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Seth Mattinen (Oct 02)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Matthew Petach (Oct 03)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Leo Vegoda (Oct 04)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Kevin Oberman (Oct 04)
- Re: Minimum IPv6 size Leo Vegoda (Oct 05)